Many Miles

It's just beginning.

At one time I held a similar view. But, unlike you, when pressed to defend my position I found it impossible without invoking provisions of Mosaic law, which was a law that never applied to anyone other than either natural born Jews or individuals who for their own reasons decided to convert to Judaism. But aside from natural born Jews, God never required anyone else to submit to provisions of that law and, to the contrary, the whole time He was accepting worship of persons outside Judaism who feared him and worked righteousness. Hence what James presents I can see only through the lens of standards predating Mosaic law that would have applied to everyone. There is no standard predating Mosaic law remotely suggesting the substance of blood should be treated as a sacred substance. Just think about that carefully, especially in regard to what was said to Noah. There is, for instance, no pre-Mosaic law standard suggesting it would have been wrong to transplant blood for medicinal purposes to either treat or prevent a health condition, and even in ancient times blood was useful for both and was used for both.

A teaching could be wrong because it's unsound.
A teaching could be wrong because it's false.
Though both are wrong, the latter would be more wrong than the former.

The society holds disparate teachings when it comes to parts versus a whole. (Flour, milk, etc versus cake)
Regarding soul (life), it's said to have two major components; a body and breathe of life.
Together a body and breathe of life IS "soul".
Apart NEITHER a body nor breathe of life IS "soul".
Regarding blood, it's said to have four major components; red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.
Together red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma IS "blood".
Apart red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma EACH IS "blood".
The irony of these two disparate treatments of parts versus whole is that the society also teaches that blood is considered to be equivalent to life (soul). Yet it treats what makes up the two disparately.
There is no person inside the big house who's ever even attempted to answer for the contradictory bit of teaching.

The society holds disparate teachings when it comes to parts versus a whole. (Flour, milk, etc versus cake)
Regarding soul (life), it's said to have two major components; a body and breathe of life.
Together a body and breathe of life IS "soul".
Apart NEITHER a body nor breathe of life IS "soul".
Regarding blood, it's said to have four major components; red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.
Together red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma IS "blood".
Apart red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma EACH IS "blood".
The irony of these two disparate treatments of parts versus whole is that the society also teaches that blood is considered to be equivalent to life (soul). Yet it treats what makes up the two disparately.
There is no person inside the big house who's ever even attempted to answer for the contradictory bit of teaching.

At one time I held a similar view. But, unlike you, when pressed to defend my position I found it impossible without invoking provisions of Mosaic law, which was a law that never applied to anyone other than either natural born Jews or individuals who for their own reasons decided to convert to Judaism. But aside from natural born Jews, God never required anyone else to submit to provisions of that law and, to the contrary, the whole time He was accepting worship of persons outside Judaism who feared him and worked righteousness. Hence what James presents I can see only through the lens of standards predating Mosaic law that would have applied to everyone. There is no standard predating Mosaic law remotely suggesting the substance of blood should be treated as a sacred substance. Just think about that carefully, especially in regard to what was said to Noah. There is, for instance, no pre-Mosaic law standard suggesting it would have been wrong to transplant blood for medicinal purposes to either treat or prevent a health condition, and even in ancient times blood was useful for both and was used for both.

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

More has been accomplished in this discussion than meets the eye. Maybe there's more life to it yet. We'll see.

More has been accomplished in this discussion than meets the eye. Maybe there's more life to it yet. We'll see.

I wouldn't presume they did or didn't. According to the biblical presentation everyone after the flood was a descendant of one family, all of whom knew the story. It's fairly safe to say everything around that event was passed along one way or another. (Think: Melchizedek "priest of the Most High God")
Also, we have the testimony of God inside Mosaic Law. He had no reason to specifically stipulate the selling of carcasses dead of natural cause to descendants of Noah, but He did. This would suggest God had no particular aversion to the notion aside from what He demanded of Jews under Mosaic law. But people of the nations, though descendants of Noah, were not Jews under Mosaic Law. Did I read something earlier about God not departing from His character? How does that fit here?

Take two of whatever makes you feel better, and call me in the morning. 

Not sure how that follows.
There is NO mention in Gen 9 of flesh dead of natural cause.
If x then y
Not x then not y because of x
"Every moving animal that is alive" is the antecedent.
 

Of the notion that God would need to change His very character in relation to the substance of blood presumes God has always held blood as a sacred substance, what is the evidence of that?
In Eden, there was one thing and one thing only that God held sacred to Himself. The tree of knowledge. Mess with that tree and you die. Are we to presume Adam would have also died had he ate blood, and that God would have held that a secret without telling him until it was too late? God gave Adam dominion over animals just like He gave him dominion over vegetation and all the earth, and only of ONE of these did he carve out an exception.
Humans were given dominion of all animals, vegetation and the earth. The one thing not mentioned in the giving of dominion to humans was dominion over humankind. And, there was the one carve out regarding vegetation, which was the tree of knowledge.
After Eden we have Cain murdering Abel. So whoever said a human could exercise dominion over another human life? Of the record we have, no one. Though there was no existing prohibition on murder God took the moment to express His disapproval of what Cain had done. But this had nothing to do with the substance of blood. It had to do with taking innocent life of a human by a human. God didn't care if humans killed animal or botanical life. But humans had not been given dominion over humankind.
Later, to Noah, God made it clear that humans could take human life but it had to be justified based on murder. Though God  had removed human dominion over animal life temporarily through the flood, afterward he again gave humans dominion over animals (and vegetation) which meant humans could kill either for their needs. But as God did in Eden He did again after the flood. He carved out a single thing by telling humans they could not eat blood of animals alive under their dominion when they killed them as food, and they could not eat animal flesh without killing it first. But none of this required Noah to treat blood as a sacred substance. Of blood from animals Noah killed to eat their flesh, God left him totally free to use that blood for anything else.
It was only when Mosaic Law came along that the substance of blood was required to be treated as a sacred substance.
The whole notion that God has somehow always held blood as a sacred substance is nonsense. There is no evidence for such a broad claim.

I was thinking mushrooms.

Take two of whatever makes you feel better, and call me in the morning. 

I prefer enchiladas.

I prefer enchiladas.

Think in terms of "the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs." Just think it through.
 

My buttered popcorn is good!

Yeah. That's why I said earlier that I believe in evolution! lol